This election is a dreadful choice for the lesser evil, but to support a Marxist is hardly the lesser evil.

While I understand your desire to “try something new” on the theory that the Republicans have tried all the “tricks in their bag”, this ignores the possibility that Obama will (and indeed, he has already promised to in some regards) roll back elements of progress already made. Absolutely without question he would add federal funding to push abortions abroad and at home. And he may do a great deal more.

And that’s leaving aside the fact he would work hard to reverse the recent direction of the Supreme Court with his appointments (luckily, he’d probably only have the chance to replace liberals), which serves the purpose of frustrating any efforts by those seeking to outlaw abortion at any level — an enterprise that you say that you wish well.

What exactly are we supposed to imagine that Obama _will_ do to help reduce abortion other than gladly accept the votes of any pro-lifers willing to convince themselves to vote for him?

There are several factual inaccuracies in what you say here:

1) The bill in question was first introduced in 2001, and was first voted on by the Illinois legislature during the 2001 session (before the federal bill was passed). It was on this vote that Obama voted present (he did, however, speak in opposition to the bill, saying it was unconstitutional).

2) In 2002, the bill was re-introduced. Obama voted against the bill in committee and was the sole speaker against the bill on the Senate floor (he claimed that it would burden physicians).

3) The bill was again reintroduced in 2003 and came before a committee Obama was chairing. He did not vote against the bill in 2003, or even vote “present” on it, because he didn’t have to. He simply never called the bill up for a vote.

4) The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act did not create any new crimes. Rather, it simply made clear that all existing federal protections applied to children who were born alive during an abortion. As there is no generally applicable federal statute against murder, it is false to suggest that the federal law somehow rendered the Illinois bill redundant.

But I suspect, given the odd way you worded your question, that you already know this.

Yes. And had I been a member of the Illinois Senate in 2003, I would have voted for that bill, contrary to (then State-)Senator Obama’s abstention.

Having said that, it is not quite honest to say Senator Obama “would deny children who survive abortions basic medical care” when he simply didn’t support passing a state law that including in it a provision that repeated what was already made a federal crime a year before. Without defending Obama’s action, I think being disingenuosu about it harms the integrity of the pro-life movement.

I don’t deny that Senator Obama is pro-choice. And I strongly disagree with him on that particular matter. But Senator Obama has spoken with the substantial and organized pro-life caucus in his campaign (“Pro-Lifers for Obama”) and assured us that as President, he will support the 2002 federal law. He also said that he wants to move beyond these rhetorical skirmishes between pro-life and pro-choice activists and find effective means of reducing abortion.

I would never insist that anyone else is morally obligated to accept his invitation. I hope there continues to be a strong, effective movement working on legal restriction on abortion. But we have had eight years of a “pro-life” President with his party in charge of Congress for six of those years. We have seen what they have done and I applaud any accomplishments they have made on the pro-life front.

However, if the Republicans have more pro-life “tricks in their bag” I have to wonder why they didn’t play them already. Was it to string out pro-lifers for our political support over time?

For me, I’m ready to try to find success in a different approach. I reserve to right to swing back to any other strategy. But for the most part, I conclude that after their years in power, the Republicans have either exhausted what they are willing to do, or are deliberating holding back. I want to give Senator Obama a chance to make good on his offer. He has convinced me that he has respect for pro-lifers and wants a true dialogue and collaboration with us.

And for those (not here, but elsewhere) who say this makes me destined for hell and unworthy of the sacraments of my church, well, contact me privately if you want to know what I think of you.

Congress passed a federal version of the bill Obama helped kill, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in 2002. The law passed unanimously in the Senate.

But I suspect, given the odd way you worded your question, that you already know this.

Are you honestly going to defend Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation? Obama is radically proabortion.”

feddie,

If, as you assert, Obama denied children who survive abortions basic medical care in 2003, can you explain why Senator McCain has never made any move to protect them in all of the years hence?

Are you honestly going to defend Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation? Obama is radically proabortion.

Then how can you possibly vote for Obama?”

Feddie –

How can people who claim to be advocating for the highest virtue imply things that are false and inaccurate?